[ SECRET POST #2527 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2527 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 042 secrets from Secret Submission Post #361.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Why do they need to be like the originals? I mean, don't get me wrong -- I don't like The Hobbit because I thought it was...well...bad (and I didn't really like the LotR movies because the fight scenes were way too pointless and long), but I'm frankly utterly baffled by the attitude that adaptations should be like the originals. What's the point of adapting something so well-known and long-lived if you're not going to change anything? A perfectly faithful adaptation is so pointless -- completely insular and circular and devoid of original thought and creative perspectives or interpretation of the text. Just wanking to itself, paying no heed to its audience or its position in culture.

If I want canon, you know what I do? I go re-read my beloved canon. Canon is usually my favorite -- it's definitely my favorite for both Sherlock Holmes and Lord of the Rings. But when I see adaptations, on the other hand, I expect to see some playing around and (tasteful) expansion, because I don't see the point of listening to a bunch of actors mindlessly miming and parroting the dialogue and actions from the book.

[insanenoodlyguy]

Yeah, but people want the SPIRIT of it captured.

The Marvel movies? They change a shitload from the comics. I could give you a list... And yet me and most comics fans LOVE THEM.

Because they got the spirit right. If you lose that, you lose the original fans.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Yeah, but people want the SPIRIT of it captured.

You mean, an increasing pile of editorial stupidity that makes little narrative sense? In which case, I'll certainly agree that Marvel cinema has generally followed in the footsteps of what Marvel editorial has done with the characters.

It's not surprising to me that they're revisiting Days of Future Past, Marvel's equivalent of the Temporal Cold War. (Although Days of Future Past was a good idea that became dumb the more Marvel tried to fix it. Temporal Cold War was just plain dumb from the start.)

[insanenoodlyguy]

Not a marvel movie. Doesn't count.

And the spirit of the characters. A storyline can have an essence but the characters are something that stand on their own.

Those movies have it. Hobbit doesn't. You apparently don't like them but that doesn't change that marvel comic fans complain about the movies changes a hell of a lot less.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

They don't need to be like the originals, but they're barely even adaptations. "Oh yes, let's change EVERYTHING about the narrative and give the characters the same names! Brilliant!"

[intrigueing]

"Oh yes, let's change EVERYTHING about the narrative and give the characters the same names! Brilliant!"

I gotta say -- while this is theoretically a legitimate reason for disliking an adaptation, in practice it is actually so subjective that it is pretty much impossible for everyone to agree objectively about what was fucked up vs what wasn't.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Note that I didn't say I disliked the new works. Just that they're not really adaptations, more like independent fanworks wearing adaptation drag and loosely in the spirit of the original work.

And no, it's not subjective at all to point out that the movies add at least three additional perspectives, break the subjectivity and unreliable narrator of the novel by giving the Dwarves, Elves, and Gandalf center stage, cover events that were retconned into the timeline in later works, and give Thorin motivations that didn't even exist in the original work.

[intrigueing]

That's true, but a lot of people don't agree that extra-canonical = anti-canonical. Just sayin'. Some people will go "oooh, this is a nice improvement/expansion on the books" and not feel like the additions make the movies unlike the books. (I'm not one of them, but there are plenty of people who do feel that way, particularly those who watched the movies first).

[cbrachyrhynchos]

"That's true, but a lot of people don't agree that extra-canonical = anti-canonical."

Canon is a bullshit concept. Just sayin'.

[(Anonymous)]

and if you're going to bring my 'beloved canon' to life on the screen, I'd like you to be as faithful as you can to bringing the imagery forward into visual. I want to see the text play out visually.

an adaptation falls apart when the only thing it has in common with the original source are the names.